This piece originally appeared in the .
There is an emerging national debate about school policing. It is not about whether school police should be armed but about how best to improve school environments and ensure student success while minimizing unnecessary student arrests. aim to reduce police involvement in routine disciplinary school matters, ensure fairness in disciplinary processes, and increase the ratio of counselors and student support services to cops.
Sadly, while many communities explore how to improve school climates by building trusting relationships between adults and students, Pittsburgh debates the arming of school police.
A recent Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and a adopted by the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers’ executive board both put forth troubling arguments that are at odds with what we know about school policing.
The most immediate impact of arming school police would be felt by students, as school-based police spend the bulk of their time interacting with students in nonemergency situations. Having officers patrol the hallways with firearms sends a negative message to students. It makes many students feel that they are being treated like suspects. It can have an intimidating presence and can contribute to negative attitudes about police, in general.
There is no evidence that arming school officers increases overall safety or improves relationships within school communities. Having an armed officer stationed in schools has neither prevented nor stopped “active shooter” incidents. It did not at Columbine High School nor has it elsewhere. Thankfully, these tragic situations are still rare in schools.
How school-based police interact with students and the tools they carry and sometimes use have been the source of controversies. Incidents involving the use of even less lethal police tools, such as and pepper spray, have resulted in complaints, lawsuits, and injuries to students. These have been on the rise in recent years.
Pittsburgh is far from alone in not having armed officers in schools. The largest school district in the state, Philadelphia, . Instead, the School District of Philadelphia, its police department, and the city police department have focused on instituting and designed to reduce unnecessary student arrests, which have been cut in half in recent years. And, so far, there has been no major uptick in violence in those schools.
Unarmed school staff does not mean that schools are defenseless in emergency situations. School districts have arrangements, formal or informal, with local law enforcement in which outside assistance is provided when needed in emergencies, such as when there is a bomb threat or serious injury.
Especially troubling is the editorial’s argument that school police should be armed because police in surrounding communities are.
Places of learning are not security zones or criminal justice institutions, and they should not be staffed that way.
The national conversation about school policing has begun to focus on what kind of staffing is appropriate for schools. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Education released data showing that 1.6 million public school students attend schools with . Recent studies have found that the number of police exceeds the number of counselors in many districts.
Forward-thinking districts are reconsidering the kinds of support staff that work in schools, not whether they should be armed.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Montana Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. MontanaHeld v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine. -
Texas Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
State v. OchoaState v. Ochoa
This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. -
Press ReleaseApr 2024
Free Speech
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic FreedomACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic Freedom
NEW YORK — In response to the anti-war protests happening at colleges across the country, and the disturbing arrests that have followed, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to leaders at both public and private universities. The letter states: “As you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution.” Authored by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero and National Legal Director David Cole, the letter offers university leaders five basic guardrails to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom are protected on campus: They must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. They must protect students from targeted discriminatory harassment and violence, but may not penalize people for taking sides on the war in Gaza, even if expressed in deeply offensive terms. They can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral time, place, or manner policies on protesting activity, but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves. These rules must be applied consistently and without regard to viewpoint. They must recognize that armed police on campus can endanger students and are a measure of last resort. They must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions. The letter also informs university leaders of relevant Supreme Court precedent: “The Supreme Court has forcefully rejected the premise that, ‘because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.’” The letter strongly advises university leaders to be “cognizant of the history of law enforcement using inappropriate and excessive force in responding to protests, particularly against communities of color,” and that — as events of the past week have made abundantly clear — arresting peaceful protestors is likely to escalate, not calm, tensions on campus. The letter also reiterates that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic and that “physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively is unprotected conduct, not protected speech.” -
PodcastJan 2024
Juvenile Justice
It's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's StoryIt's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's Story